this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
446 points (96.7% liked)

politics

31105 readers
2104 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive article https://archive.is/hXQTC

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This, back in 2008, North Carolina went Blue for Obama. It went red for Romney in 2012. Why?

Well as someone who remembered the Churches pleading with everyone to "Vote for the Mormon over the Muslim" I can tell you.

It's because the beehive hadn't been kicked yet. The idea of a black president seemed like a wonderful sign of the progress we made as a nation. When it actually happened, that retroactively became a bridge too far.

There was a silent contract, racists could be polite and civil. A black man could be equal to a white man, as long as everyone silently agreed the white man was "more equal"

When the President was black, well, that was seen as a violation of the social contract. The same people who voted for Obama to show how "Not racist" they were, suddenly became furious that he won. Because the "contract" compelled them to outwardly appear non-racist by voting for a black guy, but when it was "violated" by his election, these same people proudly dropped the Hard R to describe the leader of the free world while watching Fox News.

am I making sense?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree, but I put it more down to Fox et al than the social contract.

I would change it to: " The same people who voted for Obama ~~to show how “Not racist” they were,~~ because they were open to the idea of being not racist ~~suddenly became furious that he won~~ were bombarded by Fox how terrible Obama was and how horrible Democrats were. And they slowly but surely absorbed that message. "

Fox went absolutely apeshit after Obama was elected, they wanted to do everything they could to bring him down in any way they could. And their rhetorical techniques are good at appealing to people (inb4 lemmy's seeming misreading, it's disgusting, but I observe that it works).